MTG Salvation

Spotless Minds 1UBB
Sorcery (R)
For each card in your hand, target opponent discards a card or sacrifices a nonland permanent.
Discard seven cards.
"Wait, what am I doing here?"
"I don't know. Have we met?"

EDIT: Wait... I'm supposed to hose the previous card, d'oh!

Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy is considering building another EDH deck JUST to put this card in it. I think he'll be disappointed by how things play out if he ever overloads it, but for now, he's in love. Johnny likes the meta-game of figuring out how to reliably cast this, but prefers his expensive combo payoffs to be more open-and-shut game winners. Spike is drooling at the potential to control entire rounds of EDH, but isn't holding his breath that this will ever get cast.
(2/3) Elegance: I'm a bit torn on this. "Control target player" and Overload are some of the most inelegant mechanics on their own, but this is as straightforward and clever an implementation of them as could be expected.

Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: The main effect is definitely black. If the overload cost were also monoblack, I'd expect it to cost more than just mana, but making it Grixis sidesteps this. Blue and red are the other "gain control" colors, and this IS a Bolas-themed card, so it all checks out, color-wise. No rules are broken, and it couldn't be anything other than mythic. This would never be printed in a Standard-legal set, and I'm not sure Wizards would print a big, bombastic story-related mythic in a Commander Series precon that ISN'T a legendary creature. Actually, no non-creature mythics have been printed in a commander release except for the planeswalkers that can be commanders.
(3/3) Balance: Worst Fears is undeniably a powerful card, but it actually saw hardly any competitive play (especially in Standard). Since this card is just "Worse Worst Fears" in two-player formats, it's essentially unplayable except in multiplayer (and really, only in Highlander variants like Commander). Because it's a multiplayer-focused design, being strictly worse than its non-overload-able counterpart isn't so much an issue. The balance is just about perfect for Commander, though other multiplayer formats not so much. I almost talked myself into deducting points here, but all of these gripes are actually viability-related. I compromised with a 0.5 point deduction in that category.

Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: The main effect isn't anything new, or even used in a unique way on its own. Overload is an existing mechanic, and has no new implementations here. But taken together, the result is an effect that hasn't been seen before. I do like the creative use of old tools.
(3/3) Flavor: Yeah, that's very Bolas. Name fits the mechanics great, and flavor text builds meaning into the card using simple, evocative storytelling.

Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: Singular possessives ending in S normally do get the 's at the end, but this isn't the case for ancient names, like Hercules. Bolas is an elder dragon, after all, so no points deducted. The first effect should read, "You control target player during that player's next turn." I know, I know. Sounds weird, but there's precedence (-0.5). Both of those examples are also mythics, and they still include reminder text for this very weird and unintuitive "control target player" mechanic. This should have, too (-1).
(1/2) *Main Challenge: It's definitely Bolas-themed, but the effect is just something we could imagine him doing at some point. It doesn't reference, supplement, or synergize with an existing Bolas planeswalker.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Yup and yup.

Total: 18.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.

Design -
(3/3) Appeal: Timmy will gladly overlook the steep color requirements and the "sac controlled creature" clause in order to cast this as often as possible forever. There are like six things about this card Johnny is pretty sure he can break wide open. Spike is looking forward to showing both of them how this card should REALLY be played. So much opportunity for synergy! It's like three different cards all in the same slot. If it were possible, I'd give this a 4 or 4.5 for Appeal.
(0/3) Elegance: You're combining some very unusual and unrelated mechanics here. They feel completely disjointed from each other, and would even be a bit confusing on their own. This card essentially has two modes: "You control target creature" and "Destroy target creature, then ***** hits the fan." And yes, sometimes you'll end up keeping the creature around, then saccing it later. As much as I generally like non-obvious design like that, it feels swingy and clumsy here. (Full disclosure — I've had points deducted for using the Panglacial Wurm ability, too. If it were just that, it might be OK.)

Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: Color wheel is fine. Each effect is solidly within the colors of its cost. There's so much going on, and it would usually result in such huge life swings and hand disruption that this absolutely needed to be mythic. The line between rare and mythic rare isn't always well-defined, but this card isn't anywhere near that line. No rules are explicitly broken, but the "unwritten rules" are being walked all over (See Balance).
(0/3) Balance: This is INSANE. It's a Mind Control with no less than THREE huge upsides that are each arguably stronger than the "Control enchanted creature" ability (The last ability is obviously dependent on the first, but you take my meaning). Just like... daaaaaang, Jimmy my man.

Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: The first half of Cruel Ultimatum has never been an aura before, so that's something, heh heh. The "steal then sac for value" effect isn't NEW, per se, though we don't usually expect to see the best of both of those effects printed on the same card. Imbalanced as that is, it's a fun attempt at an explosive, flavorful rare. And the Panglacial Wurm ability is interesting here.
(1.5/3) Flavor: Just considering the imagery of the abilities, they do feel very Bolas-like — very "inevitable". I actually adore that the card depicts an insignificant hero being literally grabbed by an elder dragon and flung at the actually-worthy enemy. It's so great. The problem with this is that it works so well under a literal translation of the name of the card that the flavor text falls very flat. If being "in Bolas' claw" is only supposed to be metaphorical, as the flavor text implies, then it mars the fantastic mechanical flavor of the rest of the card. On a more minor note, a single claw isn't really capable of grabbing things. The name should be "In Bolas' Claws"

Polish -
(.5/3) Quality: Singular possessives ending in S normally do get the 's at the end, but this isn't the case for ancient names, like Hercules. Bolas is an elder dragon, after all, so no points deducted. The mana cost of the sac ability should precede the non-mana cost (-0.5). The second "its" in the same ability contains an erroneous apostrophe (-0.5). The final ability isn't a replacement effect, and shouldn't use the word "if". (-1) There should also be an extra "your", as-per the only printed example of this effect (-0.5). All said, it should read, "As long as you control a Bolas planeswalker, while you're searching your library, you may cast ~ from your library."
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Little bit clumsy in its interaction with Bolas, but the flavor of the ability makes up for it.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Yup and Yessir

Total: 12.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.

Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy doesn't like sacrificing things for incremental value, especially things he had to invest so much into obtaining, but if he figures out this is literally a Slave of Bolas glued to a Lava Spike, he might come around. Johnny's all over this, as it has significant combo potential. Spike sees a do-nothing 2-drop that forces him into red. it also would cause him to reveal his plan pretty far in advance, and he prefers playing his cards closer to his chest... um, so to speak.
(1/3) Elegance: The first ability on its own is already a bit awkward, both because of its relative obscurity and the delayed triggered ability that that also has a "may" clause. Then, its interplay with the second ability caused me to second-guess whether I had even read it correctly. The actual way it interacts with the second ability is a bit different than I thought by reading it the first time. The second ability also subverts expectations on its own, due to a departure from the usual ending to this style of effect. You'd expect it to force the sacrifice of the stolen creature, but it sacs itself instead. As a whole, once the card is fully comprehended, I actually do like how everything fits together. It's just laid out in a discombobulating way.

Development -
(2/3) Viability: This is mostly fine, color-wise, though one of its spiritual predecessors is more black than red. It's definitely too weird to be uncommon, and probably not powerful enough for mythic, so the rarity's good. Why could this not have said "Whenever you gain control of a creature an opponent owns...?" limiting it to creatures you take control of while they're already on the battlefield closes off a lot of fun possible interactions. It wouldn't be game-breaking to let this combo with the likes of Deadeye Navigator or Grave Betrayal. There doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to quote a 15-year-old card with the only existing instance of this wording (It's not that big a deal, just a minor gripe).
2.5/3) Balance: The end result of this card, minus any incidental value from the first ability, is the same as casting Lava Spike followed by Slave of Bolas. That would cost only a mana less than this card, which lets you spread the cost out as well as having the possibility of exploiting its first ability. I don't think it would mess up the strategy if its mana cost was 2R instead of RR. In limited, the first ability won't often be relevant, but it COULD get out of hand in eternal formats. In EDH, not many cards that sound like they'd work with this actually would (For instance, Thieves' Auction doesn't interact with the first ability, since no player controls cards in exile). However, there are some that would combo with this in ridiculous ways: Molten Primordial, Mass Mutiny, Scrambleverse...

Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Its component elements are combined in an artful way, and the damage trigger from stealing creatures is uncommon enough to warrant calling it "unique-ish". However, as mentioned a few times now, most of the time, this card's effect will be that of Lava Spike followed by Slave of Bolas, with wording borrowed from Risky Move. Knowing that rather dulls my enjoyment of an otherwise creative design.
(2/3) Flavor: Everything is mostly great. All the elements work towards a common flavor goal, which is indeed very Bolas-like. I'm not taking a point for the lack of flavor text, as the mechanical flavor is almost strong enough to carry the card on its own. But the final clause of the card's second ability that causes you to sacrifice itself seems like it was included purely out of mechanical necessity. Since the card is relying entirely on mechanical flavor, it's quite jarring from a fluff perspective.

Polish -
(3/3) Quality: At first glance I THOUGHT I would be docking you for the "from another player" phrase, but it's definitely Oracle-sanctioned terminology. I give you a hundred style points for making such a risky move by referencing Risky Move. You've chosen the classically correct possessive form of Bolas (singular names ending in S get the 's treatment), though Wizards has shied away from printing his name in the possessive so far, so it's impossible to know which form they'd choose. Everything is fine here.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: It has cool synergy with OG Bolas, but I call foul on using an existing card with "Bolas" in the name as a framework for designing a new Bolas signature spell.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Yes and Affirmative

Total: 17.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.

Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy's in love. Johnny knows this is unreliable and very dependent on the matchup. Spike loves the idea of killing opponents with their own weapons, but the critical mass of value is just too hard to get to for this to be competitive enough for him. All three would gladly play this in EDH, but not necessarily because it "speaks" to them. I think this is worth a collective point.
(3/3) Elegance: Everything flows nicely and makes perfect sense. There's an issue with the "Bolas planeswalker" clause, but it doesn't really detract from the elegance of the card.

Development -
(0/3) Viability: Blue CAN get this opponent's-top-card exile effect, but not often, and only by jumping through some hoops (See: Mindreaver, Grimoire Thief, Daxos of Meletis). Red even has an easier way to get this effect (See: Grenzo, Havok Raiser). It isn't a huge bend, and wouldn't be a big issue, but it would have made a much more appropriate Grixis-colored card. Seems like it was kept monoblue only because of the stipulations of the challenge. Worded the way you have it, you will be able to cast cards exiled with ANY Bolas walker, not just ones you control(led). If this is an accident, then the design fails to even get off the ground. Assuming this is intended, that's crazy, man! Clever, but crazy. Wizards just wouldn't do this; it's too weird and feel-bad. Additionally, none of the exiling abilities of Nicol Bolas, God-Pharaoh call for remembering which cards they exile; they just go into the generic exile zone. This effect would be damn near impossible to track correctly in most cases. This could and would straight-up brick games.
(2.5/3) Balance: Evaluating the balance of this card is tricky. Near as I can tell, exiling a single card off the top, and being able to cast it with any mana, costs about 1. This card limits you to instants and sorceries, but allows a potentially larger selection. Taking into account the relative unreliability of getting this working with Nicol Bolas, God-Pharaoh, I'm costing its effect at 1.5 mana per opponent, per upkeep. In a two-player game, it would have to stick around for 3 to 4 triggers in order to pay for itself, which is reasonable in most cases (It's basically a bizarro-world, one-of Honden of Seeing Winds, so the cost is even a bit high). In Commander, though, there are more potential hits, and all exiled cards continue to be available to cast with the upkeep trigger. The value increases exponentially, rather than just x4, because you have the potential of hitting multiple instants/sorceries, casting one, and saving the other(s) for later turns. This extra power is balanced by the greater density of enchantment removal in the format, so I think it's just about right in Commander.
Creavity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: As mentioned, similar effects have been printed, but this is different enough, and designed creatively enough, not to feel rehashed.
(1.5/3) Flavor: You're clearly aiming to depict a classic "Evil Genius" speech. The name and flavor text make that pretty explicit. Bolas is a big, scaly puppeteer, pulling everyone's strings behind the scenes. I can dig it. My two complaints are that a) It paints Bolas in the same light as a goofy Bond villain, foolishly explaining his master plan before ensuring the hero can't possibly escape and thwart it. And b) That flavor text is pretty bland. It reads like a rushed draft of an idea for flavor text.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Singular possessives ending in S normally do get the 's at the end, but this isn't the case for ancient names, like Hercules. Bolas is an elder dragon, after all, so no points deducted.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Met. Nice job having this interact with a Bolas planeswalker.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Hai and Si.

Total: 19/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.

willows — 19
The_Hittite — 18.5
admirableadmiral — 17.5
Jimmy Groove — 12.5

entombedhydra: Soldiers is one of my favorite tribes. It should read, "When that mana is spent..."
kjsharp: Vivid is a great mechanic. I like rewarding mono-color decks for once. Is vivid supposed to work if colorless mana was spent as part of the mana cost? If not, it needs more specificity.
JamBlock: Cool concept. Very elfy. It's of limited utility due to the parasitic design, but giving it a mana ability of its own might have been too good. I'm unsure.
netn10: The idea of a common charm is fun, but this many options on a common could potentially cause problems in limited. The rest of the set would have to be internally balanced very well.
BlackWaltz3: Something tells me the wording could use editing, but I can't think of a better way to template it off the top of my head. Good card, and definitely a rare.
Indighost: Neat idea. Would love to see this printed, but balanced a little differently. I think it'd just be way too good in limited.